IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR M.F.A.NO.5399/2014 C/W M.F.A.No.5400/2014 & M.F.A.NO.5401/2014 (MV) IN M.F.A.NO.5399/2014:
Between:
Appannaiah, S/o Chikkathimmaiah, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Kethigana Halli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Ramanagaram District.
. . . Appellant (By Sri Arun Kumar D.N. Adv.) And:
1 Smt. Bhagya, W/o Dr. Ramanna, Aged about 53 years, Residing at No.113, “Visnhupriya”
3rd Main Road, 3rd Cross, Ramanjaneya Nagar, Chikkahalasandra, Bengaluru- 560 061.
2 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, No.25, 1st Floor, Shankara Narayan Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru 560 001.
. . . Respondents (By Sri R. Rajagopalan-Adv. for R2) This MFA is filed Under Section 173(12) of the MV Act against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2012 passed in MVC No.6372/2009 on the file of the XXII ACMM & XXIV ASCJ, MACT, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
IN M.F.A.NO.5400/2014:
Between:
Appannaiah, S/o Chikkathimmaiah, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Kethigana Halli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Ramanagaram District.
. . . Appellant (By Sri Arun Kumar D.N. Adv.) And:
1 Sri R.M. Subash Chandra @ Subash, S/o Ramachandra Makash, Aged about 29 years, Residing under the care of Dr.Ramanna, at No.113,“Visnhupriya”, 3rd Main Road,3rd Cross, Ramanjaneya Nagar, Chikkahalasandra, Bengaluru 560 061.
2 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, No.25, 1st Floor, Shankara Narayan Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru 560 001.
. . . Respondents (By Sri R. Rajagopalan-Adv. for R2) This MFA is filed Under Section 173(12) of the MV Act against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2012 passed in MVC No.6374/2009 on the file of the 22nd ACMM & 24th Additional Small Causes Judge, MACT, Bengaluru, awarding a compensiation of Rs.71,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of entire compensation amount in the Tribunal.
IN M.F.A.NO.5401/2014:
Between:
Appannaiah, S/o Chikkathimmaiah, Aged about 58 years, Resident of Kethigana Halli, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk, Ramanagaram District.
(By Sri Arun Kumar D.N. Adv.) And:
1 Smt. Jayashree, W/o Late Harish Chandra, Aged about 50 years, . . . Appellant Residing under the care of Dr.Ramanna, at No.113,“Visnhupriya”, 3rd Main Road,3rd Cross, Ramanjaneya Nagar, Chikkahalasandra, Bengaluru 560 061.
2 The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, No.25, 1st Floor, Shankara Narayan Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru 560 001.
. . . Respondents (By Sri R. Rajagopalan-Adv. for R2) This MFA is filed Under Section 173(12) of the MV Act against the judgment and award dated 14.09.2012 passed in MVC No.6373/2009 on the file of the 24th Additional Small Causes Judge, 22nd ACMM, MACT, Bengaluru, awarding a compensation of Rs.57,700/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of entire compensation amount in the Tribunal.
These appeals coming on for orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT The owner of the Tractor and trailer bearing Registration No.KA-42-T 287 and 288 filed these appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Award dated 14.09.2012 made in MVC No.6372/2009, MVC No.6373/2009 and MVC No.6374/2009 passed by the XXIV Addl. Small Cause Judge & Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short), fastening liability on him to compensate the claimants.
2. There is an inordinate delay of 607 days in filing the appeals. The appellant filed IA No.1/2014 in each of the appeal to condone the delay. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit accompanying the application, he has stated that he was aged about 68 years. His eldest son-in-law is taking care of agricultural activities and also tractor and trailer. He has not informed about the occurrence of the accident. He came to know about the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal only after receipt of the notice of the Appeal Memorandum filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. It is thereafter steps have been taken to obtain the certified copy of the Judgment and Award to file appeals. Hence, he has sought for condonation of delay.
3. On the other hand, Sri. R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 contended that the owner of the vehicle was a party to the proceedings before the Tribunal. He had engaged an advocate to defend his case. It is not open for the appellant to contend that he is not aware of the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. There is inordinate delay of more than 2 years, hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
4. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the affidavit filed in support of IA No.1/2014. The reasons assigned in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit does not constitute sufficient ground to condone the inordinate delay of 607 days in filing the appeal. The appellant was the party to proceeding before the Tribunal and he has engaged Advocate to defend the case.
5. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, delay in filing appeal can be condoned by showing sufficient cause by which he was prevented from filing an appeal within the period of limitation. The appellant in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit has clearly stated that his eldest son-in-law is taking care of the agricultural property and tractor and trailer. Hence, it is not open to the appellant to contend that he is not aware of the claim petition filed by the claimants and also the occurrence of the accident. The appeal is of the year 2014. The reasons assigned do not constitute sufficient ground to allow IA No.1/2014 filed by the appellant. Accordingly, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeals are also dismissed.
The amount in deposit in all these appeals is transferred to the MACT, Bengaluru for disbursement.
Psg* Sd/- JUDGE